What a great topic for conservative Christian conversation. This has been a hot topic for nearly 1900 years. What started the controversy?

People. As always, people started the controversy on an Apostolic teaching. The matter was put to rest in the 1 st century then came to ignite controversy again in the 15th and 16th century again with the antibaptist movement.

From a biblical view, can baptism save? According to Jesus it can. This topic will by nature take about 50 or more post in order to cover all of the questions that were received in recent years.

Q. I believe I understand the LCMS position on baptism although it seems to lead down a troublesome path. As I understand you can be regenerated through baptism and also regenerated by believing in Jesus, without baptism, and then later baptised. The Lutheran position forces one to come to this conclusion of two ways to be saved, although both are by faith alone, just two different means. In Acts 10:44ff they believed and as a result were saved, filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore baptised. Eph 1:3 also speaks of salvation by the work of the Holy Spirit. If baptism also saves, it must not save adults since an adult would not say I do not believe but I want to be baptised to get the faith to believe. If indeed the prooftexts of baptismal regeneration do actually refer to salvation, it must only be for babies since adults would of necessity believe before being baptised. And if they do only speak of babies who do not have the capacity to believe, why don't these verses say so. My question then is, what do you see wrong with my reasoning? You do not have to give me the prooftexts since I have know them and have studied them and have ready many articles and the catechism both from Lutherans and others.

A. We are pleased to hear that you have thoroughly studied the Scriptures on the topic of Baptism and other literature dealing with this subject. Perhaps you are very familiar with the Large Catechism's treatment of Baptism, but we mention it here because Luther's treatise on infant baptism in this section is extremely useful. Luther goes to the heart of the foundational theological questions at issue over against errant understandings of Baptism present among those involved in the Anabaptist movement of his time.

Perhaps we can make a couple of points that seem pertinent to the issue(s) you have raised. First, as you have implied in your letter, it seems important to note that while Baptism is God's gracious means of conveying to human beings His saving grace revealed to us in Jesus Christ our Savior, it is not the only means. On the basis of the Scriptures we teach that the spoken Word of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16-17; 10:17) and the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11) are also means of grace. It is no less a miracle of God's grace at work that an adult should believe by hearing the words of the Gospel, than that an infant should receive through Baptism the Spirit who creates the very faith by which one receives incorporation into Christ (Romans 6:4 "We were buried therefore with him by [Greek: the instrumental dia] baptism..."). Adults who hear the spoken Word and believe eagerly seek to be baptized, not because it is a human rite symbolic of one's commitment or something to that effect, but because of what God promises in and through Baptism. It must be remembered that the only theological distinction between the spoken Word of the Gospel and Baptism is that the sacrament includes a visible element; hence, our Lutheran fathers commonly spoke of Baptism as "visible Gospel." 

The Scriptures distinguish Baptism and the spoken Word, but do not separate them; they are both means of grace. As you also no doubt are fully aware, we teach that it is not the lack of Baptism that necessarily condemns, but it is the despising of this precious gift that endangers faith, for God Himself has instituted it and attached His promises to it.

The Scriptures teach, of course, that there is only one Baptism (Eph. 4:5). There is no indication that God has limited this blessed means of grace to individuals on the basis of age or levels of maturity. Baptism is God's act, a divine testimony to what "grace alone" really means, whereby He imparts the blessings of forgiveness, life, and salvation to indivduals, children and adults alike. And as our Lutheran fathers have always taught, Baptism confirms the grace of God upon adults who have already come to faith, and strengthens them in their faith, even as the Lord's Supper does.

Q. In one of the FAQs on baptism, reference is made in the answer to a "baptismal covenant." Can you tell me exactly what is meant by this term? Is it the same as "baptismal vows"? If so, what "vows" can or should be made at an infant's baptism?

A. THE LUTHERAN AGENDA, in the "Exhortation to the Sponsors" of The Order of Holy Baptism, asks sponsors to give public testimony of their intention to lend their "counsel and aid" that the child "be taught the holy Ten Commandments, the Christian Creed, and the Lord's Prayer; and that, as [he] grows in years you place in [his] hands the Holy Scriptures, bring [him] to the services of God's house, and provide for [his] further instruction in the Christian faith, that, abiding the in covenant of [his] Baptism and in communion with the Church, [he] be brought up to lead a godly life until the day of Jesus Christ." Significantly, and in keeping with scriptural doctrine, the agenda for LUTHERAN WORSHIP in the rite of Holy Baptism uses the expression "abiding in [his] baptismal grace." This is precisely what is meant by "baptismal covenant," that is, the covenant that God establishes according to His grace in Jesus Christ with this child through Holy Baptism, granting this child forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation and making him or her a child of His. To abide in this covenant is for a baptized Christian to believe in these gracious promises and to respond by leading "a godly life to the praise and honor" of God's holy name. Both agendas here mentioned beautifully set forth these truths. Please see these agendas regarding the promises ["vows"] contained in the rite of Baptism.

Q. Would you say that a person who was baptized as an infant had no worry in his salvation because of this baptism, even if he publicly confessed not to be a Christian?

A. You specifically have asked, "Would you say that a person who was baptized as an infant had no worry in his salvation because of this baptism, even if he publicly confessed not to be a Christian?" This question can be answered with a categorical "No." The Scriptures teach that the things that God gives to us through His means of grace (the Gospel and the sacraments) are to be received by faith that they may become personally our own. Just as rejection of the proclaimed verbal Gospel places one in great spiritual peril, so also rejection of God's sacred gift and act of Baptism places one in spiritual danger. Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Martin Luther says it so well in his Small Catechism, "What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

Q. In reading a recent FAQ, I find you continue to say "the rite of Baptism." Is this an error considering in the LCMS Baptism is a sacrament?

A. The reference to Baptism as a "rite" is not an error. In Article XIII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession on "The Number and Use of the Sacraments" the Lutheran confessors speak of Baptism, the Lord's Supper and absolution" as "rites" that "have the commandment of God and the promise of grace." This presumes a distinction between "rites" that "have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added" and "rites" that have been "instituted by men." Thus the issue is not the use of the term "rite," but how the term is defined. The use of the term for the order of Holy Baptism has long historical precedent and is certainly appropriate.

Q. If one was baptized years ago in the Worldwide Church of God (when they were considered a cult) and would like to join the Missouri Synod, is it necessary to be rebaptized?

A. Our LCMS theologians have taken the position on the basis of the Scriptures that the Baptisms of non-trinitarian or anti-trinitarians are not valid Baptisms. While they may use a trinitarian formula in their rite, they in fact deny the Trinity. In such cases, therefore, God's Word is not being added to the water, but rather a man-devised caricature of the words of Christ. Since such is the case with the former Worldwide Church of God, it would be necessary for one to be re-baptized.

Q. Would it not be better to baptize a baby of parents who didn't attend church--even though the parents do not attend? Is it right to keep a child from God if we have the opportunity to welcome the child? Perhaps this would open the doors of Heaven to the parents as well? Should we exclude them and not show them forgiveness beforehand?

A. It has been the historic practice of the Lutheran church to welcome all children to Baptism, including those children whose parents may not be attending worship services--provided the parents give their consent and are at least open to bringing up this child in faithfulness to his or her baptismal covenant. Many times the Baptism of a child provides a wonderful occasion for bringing the Good News of Jesus and His salvation to a family.

The Lutheran practice has been not to baptize a child contrary to the will and/or cooperation of the parents. Of necessity, pastoral judgment will have to be made in the individual case, since circumstances vary. For this reason, too, lay members of our congregations are urged to speak with their own pastor about individual cases where they may have a particular concern or desire.

Q. I have been doing a lot of searching of the Scriptures and was looking at baptism. I could find no one baptized in the name of the "Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit," just people baptized in Jesus' name (Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). Could you let me know why Lutherans baptize in the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit"?

A. In Matthew twenty eight vs 19, Jesus gives this command to his disciples

Q. The LCMS uses the "sprinkle" method of baptism, if you will. The people of the Bible, including Jesus, were baptized using the immersion method. Why doesn't our church follow the way Jesus was baptized by John?

A. On the basis of the evidence provided in the New Testament, it is not possible to prove that the term "baptize" always refers to immersion, nor that the Baptisms mentioned were all done by immersion--implying (in the view of some) that only Baptisms done by immersion can be considered valid. In fact, taken as a whole the evidence suggests otherwise. In some cases the term "baptize" is synonymous with "wash" (Tit. 3:5-6; see also Heb. 9:19; Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16, and Mark 7:1-4—a passage in which some earlier translators considered the term "baptize" to include the washing of "dining couches"), and it is highly likely that Baptisms were performed in the early church by methods other than immersion. Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem, where no river exists and no mention is made of other large quantities of water that would or may have been used. In fact, the shortage of water supplies in general in many parts of the ancient world would have precluded Baptism by immersion. As the Supplementary Volume of The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible correctly notes, "It is unlikely that in Jerusalem, Samaria, Damascus, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, or Asia Minor enough water was always available for a full bath" (87).

It should be noted that very early in Christian history methods other than immersion were used and allowed. The Didache requires the administrant of Baptism to "pour water three times on the head" (7:3). No mention is made of immersion. Early Christian art depicts Baptisms of persons standing in shallow pools with water poured on the head (see David Scaer, Baptism, 96-101).

Lutherans have therefore held that the manner of Baptism (that is, immersion, pouring, sprinkling, etc.) does not determine whether a Baptism is valid, any more than the manner of distributing the Lord's Supper (common cup, individual glasses) affects the validity of this Sacrament. Only the Word of God and the "element" (water), according to divine institution, makes a Baptism valid.